Rodriguez Mendez v. Acting Director, Port Isabel Detention Center et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
JASIEL R. M.1, 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-107
§
ACTING DIRECTOR, PORT 	§
ISABEL DETENTION CENTER, et al., 	§
Respondents. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
HABEAS PETITION SUBJECT TO REFILING
Petitioner Jasiel R. M. is currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at
the Port Isabel Detention Facility in Cameron County, Texas. Dkt. No. 1. Jasiel R. M.’s spouse,
Ana H. R., filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, on his behalf. Dkt.
No. 1, p. 8; Dkt. No. 1-1; Dkt. No. 2.
On March 10, 2026, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner Jasiel R. M. and/or Ana
H. R. to file a statement with the Court to show cause why Ana H. R. can serve as next friend for
the Petitioner and represent Petitioner in this matter. Dkt. No. 10.2 Neither Petitioner Jasiel R. M.
nor Ana H. R. filed a timely response to the Court’s order. Because Petitioner and his proposed
next friend did not respond to the Court’s order, the Court cannot find that Petitioner is incapable
of properly caring for his own interests. Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal of this
petition for failing to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 and to comply
with federal law governing legal representation.
Federal law provides that “[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and
conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. This statute “guarantees
parties the right to proceed pro se in federal court[.]” Raskin on behalf of JD v. Dallas Indep. Sch.
Dist., 69 F.4th 280, 282 (5th Cir. 2023). In other words, “a party can represent himself or be
1 Due to significant privacy concerns in immigration cases and noting that judicial opinions are not subject to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, any opinion, order, judgment, or other disposition in this case will refer to the petitioner
only by first name and last initial.
2 The response to the Court’s order was due on March 10, 2026. Dkt. No. 10.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00107 Document 14 Filed 03/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
represented by an attorney.” Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir. 1998). Section 1654,
however, does not permit a party to be “‘represented by a nonlawyer,’ [ ] because the statute does
not include the phrase, ‘or by a nonlawyer.’” Raskin, 69 F.4th at 283 (quoting Gonzalez, 157 F.3d
at 1021)). “Accordingly, for a person to invoke § 1654, the only requirement is that the case he
seeks to prosecute must belong to him.” Raskin, 69 F.4th at 283.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) enables a non-lawyer to litigate as a next friend
on behalf of a “minor or incompetent person[.]” “Individuals are incompetent for Rule 17 purposes
if they lack the capacity to litigate under the law of their domicile.” Magallon v. Livingston, 453
F.3d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up) (citing Thomas v. Humfield, 916 F.2d 1032, 1034 (5th
Cir. 1990)).
The records submitted by Ana H. R. indicate that the Petitioner lived in Texas prior to
being detained, making the state his domicile. See Moler v. Wells, 18 F.4th 162, 166 (5th Cir. 2021)
(“[A}n incarcerated person resides in the district where he was legally domiciled before his
incarceration.”). Under Texas law, a person is considered incompetent if he is “incapable, by
reason of mental or bodily infirmity, of properly caring for his or her own interests in the
litigation.” Abbott v. G.G.E., 463 S.W.3d 633, 645 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015, pet. denied).
The Court’s initial review of Ana H. R.’s filings on behalf of Jasiel R. M. found no
allegations reflecting that Petitioner is incapable of properly caring for his own interests. The lack
of response turns the Court to review again only the current filings, the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. No. 1) and Memorandum for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt.
No. 1). Ana H. R.’s filings on behalf of Jasiel R. M. contain information on the Petitioner, and the
filings include legal arguments alleging the unlawfulness of his civil detention. Considering that it
does not appear as though Petitioner Jasiel R. M. lacks the capacity to care for his own interests
and representation by a nonlawyer is not allowed, the Court finds it impermissible to consider the
Petitioner’s case brought by a next friend.
It is recommended that the Court DISMISS the instance case without prejudice to refiling.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report
and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United States District
Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an objection, a party must object
to specific facts or legal findings in this Report and Recommendation. The District Judge is not
Case 1:26-cv-00107 Document 14 Filed 03/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. Battle v. United States Parole
Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the record
before adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings without
conducting a de novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings on appeal,
except on the grounds of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243,
248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on March 24, 2026.
__________________________
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00107 Document 14 Filed 03/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3